Nuke commanders say they can refuse illegal order

[ABNAK]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11...e-refused.html

Okay, so let's say NK launches a nuke at us, whether it hits or not. Even if our ABM stuff knocks it down it still was an attempt. Analogy: if you're out and about and a shithead takes a swing at you, but you block it, do you wait for another or figure "It's on" and return the blow?

POTUS orders a retaliatory strike. The Nuke Gods say "No, but we can give you alternatives."

I have a fundamental problem with this, as what exactly constitues an "illegal" order? I can see if it was a pre-emptive move, as I don't think that would ever be justified. However, a return in kind is certainly justified but I get the impression that our top brass has become politically correct (witness Bergdahl and Manning). You HAVE to have the legitimate threat of being incinerated to deter using nukes in the first place.

[elephant]

The problem with N Korea is logistics. The US could make N Korea uninhabitable for the next 4000 years with the press of a button. The problem is that N Korea will retaliate against S Korea if the US does anything. We are in between a rock and a hard place. If the US uses any kind of force and N Korea launches chemical weapons into Seoul, the whole world will be outraged against the US and there could possibly UN sanctions against the US. I know its not best to sit and do nothing, but that's the position we are in, not take another step unless "Rocket Man" swings. Sanctions have not worked with N Korea, its only hurt the people, meanwhile the military industrial machine continues to build weapons. I think Trump was hoping China would involve themselves in hopes to bring forth a peaceful resolution and the fact that China is about to invest 250 billion into the US, I have a feeling they will start playing ball with N Korea.

[ABNAK]

Like I said, I personally don't believe a pre-emptive strike is ever going to be warranted, conventional or nuclear.

That said, if it is sent our way first then lay waste in kind, i.e. conventional = conventional, nuke = nuke.

[elephant]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11...e-refused.html

POTUS orders a retaliatory strike. The Nuke Gods say "No, but we can give you alternatives."

I have a fundamental problem with this, as what exactly constitues an "illegal" order? I can see if it was a pre-emptive move, as I don't think that would ever be justified. However, a return in kind is certainly justified but I get the impression that our top brass has become politically correct (witness Bergdahl and Manning). You HAVE to have the legitimate threat of being incinerated to deter using nukes in the first place.

I agree and I have the same attitude. But the left thinks everything Trump does is "illegal". Obviously, the POTUS cant just say "nuke so and so", there has to be reason and a procedure for any type of nuclear weapon use. The US or a member of NATO will have to be nuked first before that constitutes as a "justifiable cause" for nuclear retaliation. Obama made us feel sorry for Japan for nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima but failed to point out that the sneak attack on Pear Harbor could have prevented a war in the pacific. Its the world we live in. The top brass as you say "politically correct" are just desk generals. These aren't the same type of mentality as Patton, MacArthur or Schwarzkopf. These are generals who want to win wars with economic sanctions, letters to UN and awareness.

[Averageman]

Simply cashier Hyten out on Monday.
There you go, problem solved.

[TAZ]

And this is new in what way? If your CO orders you to rape villagers while out on patrol you have a duty to disobey it as that would be an illegal order. Whether an illegal order is coming from a nugget or the CiC is irrelevant.

[Averageman]

And this is new in what way? If your CO orders you to rape villagers while out on patrol you have a duty to disobey it as that would be an illegal order. Whether an illegal order is coming from a nugget or the CiC is irrelevant.

What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.

[elephant]

What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.

Do we set back and debate this or de we launch? I think these days, we would ask permission from congress, NATO and UN.
About submarines- that's what I don't get, those guys have the authority to launch don't they? isn't it a 2 man launch operation? They don't get to chose there targets but get to pick from 3 I think.
And finally, yes, this is a way to undermine Trump. Obama put a lot of liberals in the DOD and staffed pentagon with "whistleblowers"

[HardToHandle]

What constitutes an illegal order when the POTUS gives the call to launch?
Do we set back and debate this or do we launch?
The are a lot of guys sitting in Submarines that aren't exactly getting a live feed from CNN and who have the luxury of a private huddle before doing their duty.
this is simply another way to undermine Trump.

I read the book Raven Rock earlier this year. The book gets into the challenges that Richard Nixon faced in getting the SIOP nuclear strike plan to be more graduated and customizable. I mention this because the DOD chain command actively subverted the Presidential power to order a nuclear strike, based on Nixon's drinking prior to his resignation.

This is not the first time the President has seen concerns raised nor should it be the last. Nuclear weapons are a big deal and having reasonable checks and balances is in all of our interest.

When we talk about the NORKs, we are not nuking them, we are also irradiating South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. We likely would see some CONUS radiation here as well as ruining the tourist trade in Taiwan and the Phillippines. I will guess those countries, two of whom have the top three nuclear stockpiles, might have vote in the scenario too. Discretion is the better part of valor.

[ABNAK]

I read the book Raven Rock earlier this year. The book gets into the challenges that Richard Nixon faced in getting the SIOP nuclear strike plan to be more graduated and customizable. I mention this because the DOD chain command actively subverted the Presidential power to order a nuclear strike, based on Nixon's drinking prior to his resignation.

This is not the first time the President has seen concerns raised nor should it be the last. Nuclear weapons are a big deal and having reasonable checks and balances is in all of our interest.

When we talk about the NORKs, we are not nuking them, we are also irradiating South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. We likely would see some CONUS radiation here as well as ruining the tourist trade in Taiwan and the Phillippines. I will guess those countries, two of whom have the top three nuclear stockpiles, might have vote in the scenario too. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Not if one comes our way; we would have no choice but to respond in kind. Sure, there would be some mamby-pamby non-nuclear "options" offered by our politically correct pussified brass, 'cause we're "better than that" and we can absorb a nuclear hit. Bullshit! If a nuke is sent towards us----whether we shoot it down or not----they get canned sunshine in return. At that point the damned ChiComs should've thought about reigning them in well before things got out of hand.

Please tell me you weren't suggesting that NK is off-limits to being nuked under any circumstance, even if they light one off at us, right?